Reluctant province willing to let City of Hamilton run LRT

The province’s transit agency is leaving the door open for Hamilton to run a planned new LRT line even as it urges council to abandon the idea.

October 18, 2017

Months ago city council got on board with a local union campaign to ask the province to reconsider plans to contract out operations and maintenance of a $1-billion, 14-kilometre LRT line.

The late request temporarily derailed plans by provincial transit agency Metrolinx to put out a tender call for consortiums to design, build, finance, run and maintain the project. It also left LRT supporters worried a contract award would be delayed beyond the Ontario election in June.

But the city now has its answer: a reluctant yes — with plenty of warnings and a January decision deadline.

In a Nov. 24 letter, Metrolinx president Phil Verster appeals to council to let the private tender process go ahead.

November 4, 2017

“I strongly recommend that the project continue to be delivered using the (privately run) model,” he writes. “However, if the City decides it is not willing to proceed with this model, Metrolinx is prepared to remove operations from the current procurement and work with the City.”

Verster warned the HSR would be forced to shoulder a list of onerous responsibilities and legal obligations as part of a local operations agreement. He also ruled out the idea of the city taking over responsibility for LRT maintenance.

A companion report from city staff also identifies “immediate and ongoing costs” to the taxpayer if council commits to a locally run system — including $750,000 a year for the next seven years for a new five-person team dedicated to LRT operation matters.

LRT Cartoon Gallery

Those costs would not be covered by the $1-billion in provincial funding, the report says.

Switching gears on LRT operations would also delay procurement by up to five months because Metrolinx would scrap a completed pre-qualification process for bidders and start again.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger said Monday he was relieved to get an answer, but added council “will have to grapple” with the cost implications of the looming decision. (Source: Hamilton Spectator)

Will Hamilton miss the bus on LRT operation?

It’s a popular question in the face of a dramatic spike in no-show buses — about 23 a day last month — unprecedented driver absenteeism and escalating tensions between the transit union and management.

Two months ago, city council got on board with a vocal local union campaign to ask the province to reconsider its plan to contract out operations and maintenance of a $1-billion, 14-kilometre LRT line proposed for Hamilton.

The province and transit agency Metrolinx, which had planned to solicit private bids to design, build and operate the LRT, say they are mulling the request.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger said Thursday he expects an answer “in the next week or so,” but added he didn’t know if AWOL buses would factor into the provincial decision.

Coun. Arlene Vanderbeek, however, publicly pointed out the especially poor timing of the no-show bus crisis. “We’ve asked the province to let us run the LRT … all of a sudden, we can’t run the HSR,” she said during a meeting on the issue at City Hall.

April 28, 2017

Residents were quick to weigh in online, too.

“Wonder how this debacle is playing down at Metrolinx HQ as they ponder council request to have @hsr operate the #LRT,” tweeted Ward 8 resident Paul Seczek.

Brad Clark, the former Ward 9 councillor and a Tory transportation minister, also pointed to a “very problematic” open letter from the transit union that labels HSR management “incompetent.” “Province could seize on this letter as a reason to reject local operation or even stall LRT,” he said on Twitter.

Hamilton Liberal MPP Ted McMeekin acknowledged in a brief message he has spoken to the mayor about the HSR. “No doubt their current situation does not reflect well. Let’s hope it’s an anomaly.” (Source: Hamilton Spectator)

Mayor getting ‘antsy’ about LRT holdup

Council asked the province back in August to let HSR and its Amalgamated Transit Union workers operate and maintain the $1 billion provincially-funded light rail system.

Despite follow-ups with the Ministry of Transportation, Eisenberger says the city still hasn’t received a response or even a sense of when it might arrive.

The mayor says he’s starting to get “antsy” about the holdup and the impact it could have on the project’s timelines.

A contract was expected to be signed with a private sector consortium around June 2018, with major construction getting underway in 2019.

The request for qualifications (RFQ) process to identify prospective bidders was concluded in April. The next stage in selecting a builder is sending out a request for proposals (RFP).

But the RFP can’t go out until the province responds to the city’s request. If the answer is a full or partial yes, that changes the parameters of the already completed RFQ, which probably means starting all over again, adding months to the timeline.

That’s frustrating because, as Eisenberger notes, until the project gets to the RFP process, the community won’t know what LRT operating cost will be.

“I’m anxious to keep the process moving,” says Eisenberger.

The mayor says when he asks the province why it’s taking so long, all he gets is “bureaucratic talk.” He’s being diplomatic. As someone who’s asked the same question, I call it gobbledygook.

Coun. Sam Merulla, who originally predicted the province would respond quickly, shares Eisenberger’s concern that the delay is knocking the legs out from under the timelines.

Like Eisenberger, Merulla doesn’t care that the delay means a contract might not be signed before next year’s provincial and municipal elections. Both figure LRT will be an election issue regardless of how far along the process is. For Merulla this is about the province being upfront with Hamilton and showing “leadership.”

“They need to move on it. If they reject it, we can just move forward. By delaying the answer, they’re only compounding the problem.” (Source: Hamilton Spectator)

The Next Big Thing in the Cannabis Industry

Canada has a pot problem, as Quartz Media recently warned us, but it’s a lucrative problem to have. One thing holding back this $8-billion market Forbes Magazine, April 13, 2017) is supply, and one little-known company plans to be the steward of it in a big way.

When Canada legalizes recreational marijuana in less than a year, in line with a bill pushed through by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, legal supply is likely to be limited. There may not even be enough even if we are only considering medical marijuana usage. Keeping an eye on Insys Therapeutics (NASDAQ:INSY), Scotts Miracle-Gro Co (NYSE:SMG), Zynerba Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ZYNE), Innovative Industrial Properties (NYSE: IIRP), Teva Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: TEVA).

The supply picture is so fantastically tight that Health Canada has had to streamline the approval process for growers because medical marijuana users have tripled in number since last year alone, according to Quartz. When it becomes legal recreationally, a Deloitte report estimates the economic impact will be worth $22.6 billion annually in other words, more than the combined sales of beer, wine and spirits.

Meet Cannabis Wheaton the world’s first cannabis streaming company, backed by a powerhouse team, with the biggest industry trailblazer leading the way.

Not only is Cannabis Wheaton jumping into a huge potential market where supply is forecast to struggle to reach demand, but it’s offering a lifeline to new and existing growers who need financing to get off the ground fast.

Producers need a miracle grow strategy, and Cannabis Wheaton is stepping in to fill the gap with a ‘royalty’ business model that is new to this market.

And for investors, the major upside is that this model removes the risks associated with putting all your money into a single-crop producer.

Cannabis Wheaton is intending to ‘stream’ pot, and 15 partners have already been lined up, along with 1.4 million square feet of growing acreage. (Source: Markets Insider)

The Spectator’s view: A mayoral veto is just musing, but …

March 24, 2017

You had to know that when Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger used the word veto, hackles would be raised. Not all hackles equally, mind you. Reaction on social media was more mixed, with some actually seeing merit in the mayor’s observation. But in the minds of many — see today’s letters — Eisenberger may as well have suggested doing away with council entirely and running the show himself.

January 12, 2012

Let’s be clear: the mayor was musing, no more. The province would have to change the municipal act to enable something like a veto, and there is no appetite for that. Eisenberger knows that and said as much.

He was trying to make a point, and it’s one worth discussing. Hamilton city council, like many others, is a dichotomy in many ways. You have 15 councillors who are elected by citizens of the ward they represent. Then you have the mayor, who is elected by the community at large. In that respect, the mayor has a mandate from the entire city, while councillors have a mandate from their ward constituents only.

March 10, 2011

Ward councillors justifiably feel great responsibility to respect the will of the people who elected them. They zealously guard the interests of their ward. That’s parochial politics, and it’s not always a bad thing. But what happens when what’s best for the city overall butts up against the interests of ward councillors?

LRT is an example. Councillors for the wards most heavily impacted by LRT construction and disruption are solidly behind the project because they see its overall benefit to their wards and eventually the city overall. Citizens in other wards don’t agree. They don’t see any direct benefit so don’t support the project. (Though it’s hard to fathom how some don’t see assessment growth and new commercial tax revenue as overall benefits.)

May 11, 2009

Another example: ward boundaries. Looking at the big picture, it’s hard to argue against redrawing boundaries so all citizens have roughly equitable representation. But such changes are trouble for ward-heeling councillors whose wards might have to change for the greater good. And so, we spent thousands on consultants, ignored their work and ended up kicking the can down the road.

Eisenberger’s point was that there must be a better way. Councillors elected at large instead of by ward? A mix of both? A board of control, or “executive committee” as its called in Toronto? A mayoral veto with appropriate checks and balances to prevent abuse?

October 14, 2003

As noted earlier, the discussion is academic. But maybe it shouldn’t be. The current system certainly has its share of drawbacks, although it generally works. But would it be so bad to study, perhaps even pilot, an experiment in doing local government differently? And why not in Hamilton, a city where challenges are overshadowed by ever-growing potential? (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial)